Thanks. It sounds like it was dropped due to difficulty in the routing protocol. Is that difficulty documented somewhere I can review? If so, I might take a crack at a solution to it. But regardless I suggest the protocol should support negative fees, even if an individual routing implementation prefers to treat as 0 for simplicity. That should be up to the implementation I think, and not a protocol constraint.
On Tue, Jan 16, 2018 at 2:58 PM, William Casarin <j...@jb55.com> wrote: > Benjamin Mord <b...@mord.io> writes: > > [..] > > why not allow negative fees to incent unwinding, in scenarios where nodes > > consider that cheaper than on-chain rebalancing? > > This was brought up before here [1]: > > Rusty Russell <rusty at rustcorp.com.au> writes: > >> Edward Marynarz <edziumarynarz at gmail.com> writes: > >> Another trivial question: can the fee be negative? It might help with > some > >> channel rebalancing. > > >In my original implementation, they could be. However, that turns out > >to be a very strange idea, and complicates routing. > > [1] https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/lightning-dev/ > 2017-December/000827.html > > Cheers, > > -- > https://jb55.com >
_______________________________________________ Lightning-dev mailing list Lightning-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/lightning-dev
